Update Email Campaign

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description explains that editing a scheduled campaign alters what is actually sent at its scheduled time and instructs the agent to confirm with the user first — real side-effect disclosure. It also states patch semantics ('Omitted fields are unchanged'), which annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded: purpose, precondition, side-effect warning, then omitted-field semantics. Nothing is redundant and each sentence carries distinct operational value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: editability state, side effects, confirmation, and patch behavior. It does not describe the response or list which fields are mutable, but with 82% schema coverage and annotations present this is close to complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 82%, so the schema already documents most of the 11 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful optionality semantics with 'Omitted fields are unchanged', telling the agent that any omitted field will not be cleared — a behavior the schema does not spell out.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Update an email campaign'), and the follow-up constrains it to draft/scheduled state. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling update-sms-campaign / update-push-campaign / update-in-app-campaign tools, but the resource name makes the distinction unambiguous on its own.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear editability precondition ('Only draft and scheduled campaigns can be edited') and a confirmation requirement before mutating a scheduled send. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it versus create-email-campaign, so it is strong context rather than complete routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.